KAKKAMKOVVAL EASWARA VARRIAR Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short legal question which arises for decision in this appeal is whether, when the court award relied on by a party who applies under Section 28A is modified in appeal and the land value awarded by the Reference Court is enhanced by the Appellate Court the applicant under Section 28A is entitled to have his application decided in terms of the appellate judgment. In the instant case, the appellant/claimant relied on the award of the Reference Court in L.A.R. 120/1987. At the time when the application under Section 28A was filed, the claimant in L.A.R. 120/87 had preferred an appeal to the High Court. The prayer in the application under Section 28A was that the market value of the appellant's property be re-determined on the basis of the decision in L.A.R. 120/1987. Significantly in the application under Section 28A the appellant had not mentioned the rate actually claimed by him. It appears that within a few months of filing of the application under Section 28A, the appeal preferred against the award of the court in L.A.R. 120/87 was allowed and the High Court passed Ext. A-5 judgment re-fixing the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs. 1,500 per cent enhancing the rate from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 1,500. The Land Acquisition Officer took the view that the appellant can be awarded only the rate of Rs. 1,000 per cent which was awarded by the L.A. Court in L.A.R 120/87. However, the Land Acquisition Officer referred the question to the court under Section 28A(3). In the reference, the appellant produced Exts. A-1 to A-7 and A-5 was the appellant judgment. The learned Subordinate Judge did not become inclined to rely on Ext. A-5. Instead the court took the view that the appellant's property was slightly inferior to the properties covered by various documents including Ext. A-5 (the property involved in L.A.R. 120/87). Accordingly, the court would make a cut of 20% and re-fix the land value at Rs. 1,200 per cent only.

(2.) In this appeal various grounds are raised and it is prominently urged that the Reference Court was bound to re-determine the market value in accordance with Ext. A-5 appellate judgment as it was not open to the Government to urge that the appellant's property was inferior to the property covered by Ext. A-5. Other grounds relating to the correctness of the computation of the total compensation are also raised.

(3.) Sri K. M. Augustine, the Learned Counsel for the appellant addressed us in detail. All the arguments of Sri Augustine were resisted by Smt. K. T. Lilly, the Government Pleader. Placing strong reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Babua Ram v. State of U.P., 1995 2 SCC 689 and connected cases (para 39 of the above judgment) it was forcefully argued by Sri Augustine that when the court award relied on in the application under Section 28A is modified in appeal by the High Court, the trial court award would merge into the High Court award and it is the High Court award which rules. It is the High Court decree which alone is executable. The principles of merger will and should operate. Sri Augustine would place reliance also on the decision of Supreme Court in Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari, 1995 2 SCC 736. Sri Augustine also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Munshi Ram, 2006 2 KerLT 992 and argued that in proceedings under Section 28A, the award to be relied on is the award of the Reference Court as modified in appeal by the Superior Courts and not the award originally passed by the Reference Court.